RAJA DHARAM DEV CHAND Vs. SHIAM SUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Kangra, and Hoshiarpur District whereby he upheld the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs.

(2.) The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the trial Court, brought a suit against the defendant (respondent) for declaration that they were the sole owners of a Khokha and Tharra forming part of Khasra No. 1070/342 and they had the right to use the street by virtue of their right of easement and the defendant (respondent) had no right to interfere with their possession and right to use the street. They prayed for a permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession and the use of the street. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the property in dispate and that they had not acquired any right of easement and that the property in dispute was a part and parcel of Unit No. BI-4S-179 which he had purchased from the Custodian and the street and the Khokha in dispute formed part of this Unit. The trial Court had framed various issues including the issue to the effect whether the disputed place formed part of Khasra No. 1070/342 or of Khasra No 349. After recording the evidence of the parties the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with costs. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the Additional District Judge Kangra, who upheld the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal with costs.

(3.) The appellants have not been able to show any legal infirmity in the decision of the first Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the appellants drew my attention to Ex. P. 13, which is an agreement of sale entered into between Lala Gurdas Mal and Harbans Lal on one side and Lala Ghisa Ram and Raja Dharuy Dev Chand (Appellants-plaintiffs) on the other. This agreement related to the sale of two shops and a wooden stall, the latter being in the occupation of Jagan Nath as a tenant. This agreement was attested by Sham Sunder defendant. It was urged that by attesting this document Sham Sunder know that the wooden stall belonged to the vendors and not to him. Similarly, my attention was drawn to Ex P 20 which was a letter addressed to the plaintiffs by Jagan Nath regarding the payment of rent in respect of Khokha in dispute. This has been scribed by Sham Sunder respondent. It was contended that the effect of this document is that the respondent knew that the said Khokha belonged to the plaintiffs Documents Public Witness 16/1, Public Witness 16/2 and Public Witness 16/3, extracts from the property tax register in respect of Khokha in dispute showing the plaintiffs as the owners, were also referred to. Copy of judgment of Senior Sub-Judge, Dharamsala, delivered by him as Rent Controller between the plaintiffs and Jagan Nath tenant in respect of Khokha (Ex. P. 18) was referred to for proving the ownership of the plaintiffs.